Court Deals Trump Major Blow, Halting Key Effort

A federal appeals court on Monday struck down President Donald Trump’s attempt to retain Alina Habba as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, ruling her appointment violated legal requirements.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous 3-0 decision, affirming a lower court order removing Habba from the post.

The ruling carries political significance, as Trump’s effort to keep loyal prosecutors in Democratic-led districts was viewed as a move to influence sensitive federal cases.

The administration may seek review from the full 3rd Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court.

Habba, a former personal attorney for Trump and staunch administration loyalist, had taken charge after her temporary appointment expired.

The court scrutinized the unusual steps the Department of Justice took to extend her tenure, which involved maneuvering through Attorney General Pam Bondi.

During October hearings, a three-judge panel questioned DOJ lawyers about the legality of the process, which relied on overlapping mechanisms authorized by Congress, CNBC reports.

DOJ attorney Henry Whitaker argued the administration carefully followed statutory rules.

“In this case, the executive branch admittedly took a series of precise and precisely timed steps not to evade or circumvent those mechanisms but rather to be scrupulously careful to comply with them,” he said.

The judges, two appointed by George W. Bush and one by Barack Obama, expressed skepticism, questioning whether the process skirted constitutional limits on executive appointments.

The challenge to Habba is part of a broader pattern of disputes over Trump-appointed prosecutors nationwide.

Interim U.S. attorneys Lindsey Halligan in Virginia and Bill Essayli in California are facing similar scrutiny over the legality of their appointments, raising questions about whether the administration sought to bypass Senate confirmation or other statutory procedures.

Abbe Lowell, a D.C.-based litigator representing parties contesting Habba’s authority, described the ruling as precedent-setting.

“This marks the first time an appellate court has confirmed that President Trump cannot bypass longstanding statutory and constitutional procedures to install preferred U.S. Attorneys,” Lowell said, per Trending Politics.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Co-counsel Gerald Krovatin added, “We will continue to challenge unlawful appointments wherever appropriate.”

The dispute began after Bondi appointed Habba as interim U.S. Attorney following a rapid resignation by her predecessor.

Trump formally nominated Habba in June, but she never underwent Senate confirmation, a constitutionally required step. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), interim appointments are time-limited.

To extend her tenure, the administration appointed Habba as both “Special Attorney” to the attorney general and First Assistant U.S. Attorney, attempting to automatically elevate her to acting U.S. Attorney.

The appeals court ruled these measures violated FVRA provisions.

Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher, writing for the panel, emphasized the need for stability in the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

“Yet the citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office deserve some clarity and stability,” he wrote, noting that the unusual appointment process had caused uncertainty within the office.

Monday’s ruling follows similar decisions affecting Trump-appointed prosecutors, including Halligan, whose interim appointment in Virginia was invalidated last month.

Collectively, these rulings underscore that political loyalty alone does not override statutory and constitutional safeguards and reinforce the requirement that executive appointments adhere to legal frameworks, even amid political and administrative pressures.

The decision does not impact ongoing criminal cases but clarifies the limits of presidential authority in appointing top federal prosecutors.

By upholding procedural requirements, the 3rd Circuit decision highlights the courts’ role in balancing executive flexibility with the rule of law, signaling that attempts to strategically position loyalists in key districts will be closely scrutinized.

WATCH:

SHARE THIS:
By Reece Walker

Reece Walker covers news and politics with a focus on exposing public and private policies proposed by governments, unelected globalists, bureaucrats, Big Tech companies, defense departments, and intelligence agencies.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x